10/09/10 Saturday 8:26pm EST
12/08/16 Thursday 4:56pm EST
C/S FOR ROLAND II, Part 3
Roland Berry experienced an exteriorization with full perception
during routine auditing ca. 1999 and wrote up his experiences to the
net.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland0.memo
Not only did he experience a full exteriorization, he WENT exterior
on the exact right buttons laid out by LRH in the 50's, namely,
affinity, nosympathy, sympathy, propitiation, BEING a body.
Apparently however, over time Roland lost reality on his own
experience, and started to publicly berate auditing, dianetics, and
scientology, started demanding proof etc, and eventually became one of
the biggest meatball basher assholes in the history of the net.
Eventually I kind of had it with him, feeling that his direct
experience of something man as longed for, for thousands of years, was
wasted on a useless pinheaded nitwit.
So I started to write up a set of postings detailing a C/S for him
to rehab his experience and get certainty back on the subjects of
dianetics and scientology.
(A C/S is a program of auditing written by a preclear's Case
Supervisor in order to handle the next step in auditing or to repair a
prior step gone wrong.)
These postings are here:
C/S FOR ROLAND
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 1
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore615.memo
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 2
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore616.memo
This posting continues where the last one left off, and was
inspired by ADORE86.memo which was recently posted to the net.
ADORE86.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore86.memo
We have come a long ways since ADORE86.memo and I can now speak to
some of the problems mentioned there, mostly the unrunability and
unauditability of some items, particularly solo.
QUESTION AND ANSWERS
The first important advance is a better understanding of the nature
of Questions and Answers and the effect they have on a case, something
mentioned in detail in adore86.memo, without full awareness of just how
right it was.
I have gone into this in endless detail in recent postings, so I
will sum it up by saying that the target of auditing is an incident.
An incident is *DEFINED* as a run in with a question causing a
persistence via a prior postulate or consideration that 'things do not
vanish on their own'. The question is usually of the form 'what to do
about it' or one of its many endless variety.
The question "what to DO about it" bypasses the earlier charge on
the prior postulate (called a God Postulate because it works) by putting
the preclear's attention on the future where 'doing something about it'
is hoped to have vanished the problem with the original condition.
So we have in time order:
Condition, failure of some kind.
Postulate that the condition is not caused by a postulate and thus
no postulate can be vanished to handle it.
Question: What to DO about it, where DO is defined as futher
creations of effort in the future to destroy or ameliorate the now
persisting condition.
Answers galore, each one creating solutions to the original problem
which then become problems themselves inviting more questions about what
to DO about them etc, forever.
The above cycle violates the basic truth that one can never vanish
a creation by creating something MORE in the future.
The exact prior condition, failure, postulate and consideration
followed by the exact question and pursuant answers and actions and
estimated future time to solution, need to be recovered to fully erase
the incident.
A Postulate is a posted beingness, something that is there because
you say it is there and you are looking at it. It is looking by knowing
or
KNOWING -> LOOKING (Looking by Knowing)
Know first, see second. Knowing gives rise to looking.
Imagination works this way, things are created to look at in the
very conception of them?
Looking by Knowing is contrasted to Knowing by Looking, or
learning.
LOOKING -> KNOWING (Knowing by Looking).
Look first, know second. Looking gives rise to knowing.
Observations of the physical universe work this way.
A consideration is the postulation of a relationship between two or
more posted beingnesses.
Postulate: This is a cigarette
Postulate: This is an ashtray
Consideration: Ashtrays are used to hold cigarette ashes.
Postulation and consideration are often used interchangeably to
little harm, but in truth considerations are a subset of postulates, as
they are postulates that relate two other standalone postulates to each
other.
Consideration comes from CON SIDE, to put together, or to relate
two standalone postulates to each other.
The consideration that posted things are not self vanishing,
becomes part of a God postulate conglomerate because things ARE self
vanishing until the preclear gets the consideration they aren't.
Thus the God postulate that postulates do not work, works.
The God postulate that we need something ELSE or MORE than just
upostulating creates then the entire future time track of problems
begetting solutions becoming problems begetting more solutions.
Later in time observation of the now unwanted posted beingness
still persisting in time, is then used as evidence to the effect that
things are indeed not self vanishing, and away we go down the time
track.
Thus consideration and observation are dicoms.
The consideration that things do not vanish on their own, plus the
*LATER* observation that things do seem to be persisting on their own to
back it up, is known as the Consideration/Observation flip flop.
Consideration is cause and means I consider it is there, therefore
it is there. That's looking by knowing. Knowing is cause, and looking
is effect.
Observation is effect and means I consider it is there, BECAUSE I
looked and observed it was there. That's knowing by looking, or
learning. Looking is cause and knowing is effect gleaned from looking.
Consideration is 'It is there because I consider it is there.'
Observation is 'I consider it is there because I observe it is
there.'
Consideration says that consideration is cause, until it says LATER
that consideration is not cause.
Observation agrees that consideration is not cause, and provides
evidence that consideration is instead the effect of something already
existing before it was observed or even known to exist.
The observation of the continued persistence of the thing provides
evidence for the truth of the (false) consideration that things do not
vanish on their own, and thus he proves himself into a persisting trap.
LATER observations of persistence are used as conclusive proof
that the persistence was not caused by a self vanishing postulate
in the first place.
This is HOW self vanishing postulates are made to persist!
Things do not vanish on their own because he considers that things
do not vanish on their own, and his observation of those things
persisting verifies it for him that things do not vanish on their own.
So now he has happily verified that he is stuck with a persistence
forever, because things which persist, persist, and that is all there is
to it.
Try to knock out time sometime, and see how far you get.
So there.
Time is the ultimate persisting 'thing'.
He goes from a self vanishing postulate to a consideration that it
won't vanish, to an observation of it persisting, to a an unwanted
persistence, to a question about what to do about it.
This produces a locked down persistence and travels in time away
from the original postulate which in the end is the source of the whole
travail.
Let's do this again for posterities sake.
There are two phases to the consideration/observation flip flop.
In phase A the being is going, there is a pink elephant,
there is a pink elephant, there is a pink elephant, and so he has
a non self persisting pink elephant because he keeps putting it there
as fast as it can self vanish.
But he know that the pink elephant is there BECAUSE he knows
the pink elephant is there.
He is thinking,
I see a pink elephant, knowingness creates beingness.
BUt then he goes I
It is the question that locks it all down into persistence with Q&A
away from pure as-isness of the original postulate.
Vanishing something through as-isness of its original moment of
creation is NOT asking a question about what to do about it.
You see?
Question asking is death when it comes to trying to vanish
something that was created but now is no longer wanted.
The correct way to vanish anything created thing is to be at the
moment of its original creation, be creating it again, and let go of it,
minus all the consideratorial nonsense about things not vanishing on
their own, and especially minus all the question asking about what to do
about its persistence.
Formally we say that the question and answer that he comes up with
(to DO something about it) commits efforts to the idea that the original
postulate won't vanish on his own. The more he DOES to solve that
persistence, the more he commits to the consideration it is not self
vanishing.
Until he has committed effort to solving the unwanted postulate,
his second postulate that the first one won't just vanish on its own is
still tenuous.
He could still flip back to the moment of creation and
let go, not enough time has passed to confuse things.
And it's 'light time' between the postulate and the consideration
it won't vanish, unlike the heavy time that gets created once he gets
into question asking and using effort to make the original postulate not
be any more through change, destruction and outright not-isness.
Once he commits to effort, he *COMMITS* to time and pursuit and he
moves further and further away from as-isness of the original postulate,
thus making it more and more impossible to as-is and vanish.
As-isness of the original postulate exists only at the moment
of original creation.
The further in time he goes away from that moment the more
he has traveled into alter-isness and thus persisting is-ness,
and eventually not-isness.
Q&A stands for Question and Answer, but means veering off course
into new questions without having dealt with the first one.
Such a person starting off at A going to B, has trouble going to B,
so he goes to C. But then he has trouble going to C and so starts for
D. He NEVER gets anywhere he intends to go, but is ALWAYS continuing to
go somewhere new, never getting there either.
No rest, never arrives.
This is a Q&A artist. Every time he changes course he creates
trails of persistence behind him. Eventually he gets buried in them.
Thus the structure of a God postulate is like this:
Postulate -> Consideration -> Observation -> Question -> Answer ->
pursuit and execution of answer via effort in time.
Effort and pursuit creates time, chase and eventual total failure
to vanish an unwanted persistence.
Since the way out is the original way in, the more TIME a being
spends looking for a way out, the further he gets from the original way
in.
Time is a practical joke of magnitude.
NO AND SOME
The second important advance is an understanding of NO and SOME and
how to run them.
The problem with almost all of Church auditing is it only assesses
for and runs the SOME and ignores the NO.
So you ask for 'Hate?' and there is no read, but the auditor
doesn't ask for 'NO Hate?' and so they miss the item entirely.
The problem is worse though, you have to assess for NO hate first!
And if perchance 'Hate' read, you would have to start running NO
hate anyhow right off, because the hate already has flowed in the
original assessment and NO hate is waiting to run next.
If you lose sync between NO and SOME, the item will dry up and
never read again.
If you assess or run the NO item first, the SOME item will then
read and run. For a while. Then you have to go back to the NO item,
then the SOME item again, back and forth and stay in SYNC with the flows
that are happening.
So what happens is after hundreds of hours of normal auditing, all
the isness side of the preclear's items are pretty well flattened as far
as they could be, but the not-isness side of those same items has been
left restimulated but not pulled.
This acts as a missed withhold, creates an ARC break and results in
a blow, leaving the session, leaving auditing, and leaving the Church
who 'couldn't pull a missed withhold if their lives depended on it'.
The SOME item isn't the withhold! The NO item is.
SOME item, some lying, some cheating, some stealing, some murder,
some death, damnation and demise, who cares. If the preclear knows
about it or can access it easily, it just doesn't amount to a hill of
beans no matter how many people are missing it, or he isn't talking to
them about it.
You can run this kind of 'Has a withhold been missed?' forever, and
the preclear will just go lower and lower and lower until you don't have
a preclear any more.
He's taken up dealing drugs in Bangladesh, you see?
But ask him 'Is there a NO missed withhold?' and watch what
happens.
Standard Tech tries to do this with Suppressed and Invalidated, but
neither of them are NO.
And neither are the 20 other items on the standard prepcheck
list, all of which try to mean NO without being NO!
Prepcheck means checking preperatory to clearing and are used
heavily to get a preclear into session and do simply Life Repairs etc.
THE PREPCHECK BUTTONS
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm10.memo
The first set of buttons are the standard tech buttons, the rest
were added by the Freezone later, although all are part of LRH tech
in some measure or another.
Talk about missing or bypassing an entire case.
It's not enough to have written the right thing in some corner of a
book, where its importance is completely bypassed or missed.
So its kind of built into their tech, not intentionally, but the
result is the same, NO tech, NO preclears, NO auditing, NO wins and NO
Church.
Here is what happens. Your preclear has interiorized and
exteriorized thousands of times along the whole track, into bodies, out
of bodies, into groups, out of groups, into objects, out of objects,
into memories, out of memories, into universes, out of universe. Just
on and on and on.
50 percent of these are on the isness side of his case, if you ask
him about it, there it is and he will tell you about it. He may have to
dig for it, its charged, he doesn't want to talk about it, but he can
get at it.
The other 50 percent of these are on the not-isness side of his
case, and if you ask him about it, he will give you a blank stare, say
'What exteriorization?' and take a loss.
HE CAN'T GET AT A NO ITEM WITHOUT RUNNING NO ITEM!
Dig it and don't leave it.
He can't contact the not-ised exteriorizations, because they are
not-ised, covered in black, mass and charge, BUT HE CAN CONTACT THE NOT
IS!
The not-is is right there in front of his face.
So instead of saying to him 'Tell me about an exteriorization', you
say instead 'Tell me about NO exteriorization.'
Now you might ask, if he can't contact the exteriorization because
it is not-ised, how can he tell you about it, and guess what, you would
be 100 percent right.
WE DO NOT WANT HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE EXTERIORIZATION, WE WANT
HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE NO SITTING ON TOP OF THE EXTERIORIZATION.
Now remember NO means pretended no, remember the CDEINR scale.
Curious about, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit, NO, Refused.
If there were truly a no exteriorization, then the needle would
float as there is nothing there to run.
But if its a not-ised exteriorization then the needle will stop and
fall and get dirty and dance the polka, whistle dixie, play Beethoven's
5th, and the pc will still say 'nothing there'.
He's lying of course, but its what appears to him as the truth, he
can't get at it, and he is totally not sure it is there.
That's because the way to get inside a not-isness is NOT to look
real hard into the darkness and hope to see what is behind it, in it, or
under it. THAT DOES NOT WORK.
A preclear can out not-is himself all day long, for the rest of
time, forever for free.
THE STATIC IS AN EXPERT AT CREATING LOSS AS LOSS AND NOT HAVING IS
WHAT IT CREATES!
Source sources what Source is not.
What source is not is time.
Time is having, via chase and not having.
Thus time is 100 percent wanting and not having and hoping
to get via committed effort.
Believe me SOURCE HAS.
And what Source has is the ability to not have.
Not-isness is a form of pretending to not have what you actually
have, the few times Source messes up and you actually have it!
That's a joke, actually not-isness is often used against
things you have that you don't want, Source is good at that too.
Thus the way to deal with a not-isness is MAKE MORE NOT-ISNESS!
It doesn't matter what is under the not-isness, maybe its an
exteriorization, maybe its not, maybe its beautiful, maybe its ugly, but
once he contacts the not-isness, AS NOT-ISNESS, it will start to run,
flow and lift. Then whatever is under it will in due time become
visible.
Of course he will just shut it out again, but now the jig is up,
now he KNOWS he is not-ising it and will keep control over the matter
for a while.
Now again you might ask, well if he is not-ising the
exteriorization, or what ever item you are asking for, how does he know
that the not-isness he is running is THAT particular not-isness?
Good question. The answer is, it doesn't matter, whatever
not-isness he ends up running is THE not-isness that he needs to run,
next, and if its not an exteriorization under it, but a pink elephant,
well then you probably should be running pink elephants anyhow, instead
of exteriorization.
Running the not-isness will tell you in the end what isness you
should be running.
But really if exteriorization is the next item that needs to be
run, and you ask for NO exteriorization, the file clerk will be damn
sure to hand it to your preclear, because he is sitting in the NO as the
next layer of blackness to be as-ised.
(The file clerk is a Dianetic mechanism that hands the preclear the
next incident necessary to resolve his case, if asked to do so by the
auditor.)
If you don't believe in the file clerk, then believe in yourself,
if the item you are running is truly the next correct item to run, then
the NO item will blow off with complete certainty and amazement, and
will allow the SOME item to continue to run.
Now look this is important, I am not making a big deal over this
for nothing, NO and SOME are the make break between a running case and a
pissed off pc.
Remember in the old days you were told that an ARC broken pc won't
read on the meter?
In fact an ARC broken pc will not read on a meter so much that his
needle will float!
That's called an ARC break float, and must never, ever, ever be
confused with a true float which results from VGI's (very good
indicators) smiling, laughing, cogniting, going WOW! this is great etc.
So why doesn't an ARC broken pc read on a meter?
There he is sitting in front of you, kind of dead, maybe glum or
glowering, and you say,
"Is there an ARC break?"
Well you know not to take up non reading items, but just in case
you also check,
"On the question is there an ARC break, has anything been
Suppressed?"
"On the question, is there an ARC break, has anything been
Invalidated?"
But nothing reads, so the auditor goes on. He writes down there is
no read, but ALSO NO FLOAT, so he knows he is going to have to come back
to it sooner or later, perhaps after he has messed up the preclear more
with present time problems and withholds.
BUT HOW CAN ASKING FOR AN ARC BREAK READ, IF ARC BROKEN PRECLEARS
DON'T READ ON THE METER!?
Sometimes you have to put the meter away, and audit what you see in
front of you, "You LOOK ARC broken dude, so tell me about it whether you
are or not!", but let's take a deeper look at this.
Say the ARC break did read, and Goober says yeah, I am ARC broke
with Dufus.
So now you know that ARC is made of Affinity, Reality and
Communication, so somewhere Goober got pissed off or sad about Dufus and
went out of affinity, out of agreement (reality) or out of
communication, certainly all 3, but maybe one more than the other.
So you start to assess for which was it mostly, was it affinity,
was it reality, was it communication?
Goober says "Oh yes, its reality, Dufus thinks global warming is
all a bunch of bunk invented by the greenies to stop our God given
rights to produce and conquer the Earth!"
You say 'Thank you, now let's find out just how ARC broken
you are by that reality.'
Was it a curious about a reality?
Was it a desired reality?
Was it an enforced reality?
Was it an inhibited reality?
Was is a NO reality?
Was it a refused reality?
Goober says, "Oh yeah it was an enforced reality, he was pushing it
so hard, making cracks about anyone who disagreed with him, insulting
anyone who brought up data about it etc."
You say "Thank you, was there an earlier similar ARC break?"
and away you go to finish the ruds with a floating needle before
you begin session proper.
(Ruds are rudiments before starting a session, cleaning up ARC
breaks, Present Time Problems (PTP's) and missed Withholds.)
But now let's take a different example.
An ARC break consists of Affinity, Reality and Communication where
each of the 3 legs is somewhere on the CDEINR scale.
So say instead Goober happens to have an ARC break of long duration
where EACH OF THE LEGS IS DOWN AT NO!
NO affinity, NO reality, NO communication.
So you ask Goober "Is there an ARC break?" and he just looks at
you, and says NO, and the needle does not read nor float, and session
goes no where.
So you get this evil grin on your face, you put on your atomic
protective clothing, you stand back a few feet from the meter, you get
your preclear's undivided attention, and you say,
"Goober is there a NO ARC break?"
Once the smoke has cleared, the fuses in the building replaced, and
you have a new e-meter, you will then find Goober more than willing and
interested to run,
"Get the idea of NO ARC break."
"Get the idea of SOME ARC break."
And you know he will be all smiles from there on out.
THE STRUCTURE OF NOT-IS
OK, there is one more thing that is important here.
Your average woggy on the street doesn't know he has a case.
He has a NO case.
He is completely oblivious to the fact that he has dicoms he is
dramatizing and their items, but that most of them are in a state of NO
item.
(A dicom is a DIchotomy of Comparable but Opposite Magnitude).
He knows he gets mad once in a while or sad, but he has not the
faintest slightest clue that these are but fumaroles blowing off steam
on the side of a NO volcano of charge, emotion, grief, anguish, turmoil
and eternal hell forever.
That's why he is mortal in his own mind, that's a kind of NO
Immortality, NO hell forever, NO thank God!
Now a well trained preclear will understand after a few hours of
auditing that he has many SOME items and many NO items. All it takes is
finding one NO item and he's hooked on finding more, the relief is so
great.
So this preclear is now living with SOME SOME items, and SOME NO
ITEMS, and he is happy with that.
But the unaudited woggy doesn't know this, he is living with NO
SOME items, and NO NO items!
He doesn't know that he doesn't know, that's a NO NO item.
No if you think about it, if you really want to forget something,
you ALSO need to forget that you wanted to forget it!
Thus as soon as you create a NO item, you HAVE to create a NO NO
item to make the NO item stick, or else it will just come up to the
surface again the next time you sneeze.
But even the NO NO item won't stick forever, you have to forget
that too, so now you have a NO NO NO item. You see how this goes?
So in fact when a being gets dead serious about never knowing about
something never again, he creates an infinite regression of ... NO NO NO
NO item, which puts the power of the infinite behind that forgetfulness.
This infinite regression is part of what keeps time going, because
NO is another layer of effort committed to covering over the item, and
then covering over the covering over,etc forever.
As your preclear starts to run NO items, he will suddenly start to
contact the infinite regression and his time and space will rock and
start to expand significantly.
This can be dangerous, so watch it.
If your preclear goes wildly unstable, just continue to run NO and
SOME. He can stabilize anything with NO for a while, then SOME for a
while etc.
Remember also that at the craziest part of his core, the part that
really starts him swirling and swimming in dizziness, he is running both
NO *AND* SOME on the same item at the same time.
We used to talk about the poor guy who came to a fork in the
road and couldn't decide whether to go left or right. So eventually
he built a house at the fork, and decided to live there for
rest of his life.
He got stuck in an indecision, and yes building the house
was pure Q&A from getting on with going where he was going.
But he's not insane. He's stuck in an indecision to
go left *OR* go right.
The indecision is not only not insane, it isn't unethical
either, because its not illogical, and ethics is logic.
But his indecision is problematic in that his life stops
at that point and he does something else.
But imagine now that rather than settle for an unending
indecision to left or right, he makes a DECISION to go BOTH
left *AND* right.
Now he is insane, because he can't do that, and its not logical,
and thus it is unethical, and this is beginning of hysteria and all out
loss of control.
So just so is your preclear doing a item *AND* NOT item on various
things, he is also doing a NO *AND* SOME on both the item AND its
opposite.
NO *AND* SOME on love *AND* hate for mother.
This is the beginning of hysteria and insanity, because he can't
open and close the door at the same time, but the way to stabilize it is
to DO IT knowingly. Just get the idea of NO *AND* SOME of the item at
the same time, and it will stabilize and he can let go of it SLOWLY and
under control.
The destabilization comes from letting go of the nut and fruit
factory too fast.
He starts to feel unstable with all this hysteria energy swirling
around him, making his dizzy and nauseous, and he starts to panic and
starts asking questions "What should I do?!!!!" which is NOT what he
should do. He should get the idea of NO AND SOME item at the same time,
and keep doing that, and he will maintain control, and not die on you.
OK, so we didn't know all that back in adore86.memo.
That was hard won knowledge, I am lucky to be sitting here writing
this.
The important part is, that if you don't run the NO, the preclear
will start to fall into the NO anyhow and eventually blow.
(Blow means leave, leave his post, leave his friends, his auditor,
auditing, and eventually the Church).
Say you are running exteriorization, and you run it and you run it,
and the preclear exteriorizes, full perception, lights on bright in the
room even if the lights are off, moves out of his body, over across the
street, and sees all kinds of things, remote reports back and proves
each and every one of them, and then comes back into his body, and you
continue to run ext, ext, ext, ext.
Two weeks later, you are talking to this preclear and you say 'Hey
Goober I heard you exteriorized in session!"
Goober says "Yeah, well, I don't really believe in exteriorization,
there's all kinds of mental phenomenon that you really just can't say
whether its real or not."
And you say "What? What about all those things you saw outside and
could prove?"
And Goober says "Prove? Oh well, right, prove, can we talk about
this later? Thanks..."
See? Goober has had so much SOME exteriorization run that he is
now totally swamped in the missed wittholds of NO exteriorizations,
charge restimulated by auditing SOME, but not pulled by failing to run
NO.
So you grab Goober and put him back into session, and you ask him
"Tell me about NO exteriorization".
The room goes dark, blackness forever runs out and covers the
earth, and 3 hours later all the dark matter in the universe is glowing
bright, and he is so exteriorized you don't know which galaxy he is in,
or which time line.
So this is an important phenomenon. Particularly if you consider
that 'case gain' is an item, and what the consequences of failing to run
NO case gain will be to your clearing production line.
Not to mention what the consequences of failing to run NO
exteriorization on Roland will be to your future reputation in his field.
OK, take a break, donuts and coffee for everyone!
Homer
Sat Oct 9 20:51:05 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 8 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore806.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFYSZL7URT1lqxE3HERApMuAJ0bzfaQw5M7Wvne1XuTfKZve4YdSwCdHiX8
QHUE2ck/clKizuiMJSvjLts=
=yk+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sun Jan 29 14:57:59 EST 2017